Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: .::Tin Can::. on November 05, 2004, 08:45:34 pm
-
Lets work out something here: since everyone thinks US's government sucks (some more worse than others, some think it might be good) then lets take all the European's, Asians, and so on and so fourth come fourth to decide on what the perfect form of government would be, whether it be self-government, or a government on elected (or put into place) officials. We'll let them decide.
-
I think we (and euorpe) are pretty close, just need to make a few adgustments
-
Dictatorship.
But the Dictator is required to walk through a public park once a month unguarded. If the people are happy with him, they form their own security detail. If they hate him, he's ****ed.
-
I think we (and euorpe) are pretty close, just need to make a few adgustments
Name them, all mighty Quan.
-
*waves flag*
LIEK, AMERICA ALL TEH WAY!!!111ONEONE
:nervous:
-
anarchism, which is the ultimate form of self-determination. Essentially, its shrink the size of a nation down until every individual is a nation.
No government, except by free association. This basically means that you are free to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe upon someone else's freedom, and when stuff needs to get done in an organized fashion (that is, in groups) the "government" rules only with people's direct permission, and anyone who does not agree is free to leave the group, and thereby the jurisdiction of the "government" and go do their own thing.
The problem with this is, taken literally, any unwanted influence by another person could be seen as an infringement of your rights, which in theory means we'de all have to live on seperate planets. However, thats where the free association bit comes in, since people would be free to accept that living together is an integral part of being human, and thus would accept the small but inevitable bits of influence that come with living together.
For you righties: go far enough to the right, shrink the government's role down enough, and you get anarchism.
-
i dont care what kind of government we have, so long as its leagal for me to kill people that piss me off.
-
Benevolent dictatorship.
-
I think this has become a thread of sarcasm, and less seriousness... :sigh:
-
I meant it, actually. :)
-
i dont care as long as they let me abort people.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Lets work out something here: since everyone thinks US's government sucks (some more worse than others, some think it might be good) then lets take all the European's, Asians, and so on and so fourth come fourth to decide on what the perfect form of government would be, whether it be self-government, or a government on elected (or put into place) officials. We'll let them decide.
Well lets see...
1. It took the Europeans hundreds of years and 2 world wars to settle its own beef within itself... only now to be a Union....
2. The US, being as powerful as its been for the past century, once to be on the forefront of culture before the 2 world wars, have become more self indulgent in its own "archaic" way of thinking. And by that i mean how the government approches issues nowadays (and strongfully denies any errors even when they are 100% wrong)....
3. China for example was 5 kingdoms (or sumthin like that) before one kingdom got off its ass, and started taking everything over to unify the nation by force.... (might need revising here)
Everywhere else... meh europeans dont fugged up... and now they are "finally ok" with things lol...
So. does anyone still think our way sucks? maybe, but the rest aint any better!
-
Setekh: what good is peace and prosperity when you have no freedom? It may not hold true for everyone, but I would rather have freedom, if I had to choose.
Of course, the best system is one where people are both free and peaceful.
-
Here's one of the best examples of the "European system"
http://www.swissworld.org/dvd_rom/eng/direct_democracy_2004/content/politsystem/politsystem.html
and a wonderful Flash presentation to boot. Those Swiss really are born and bred designers.
-
Constitutional Monarchy.
The power and decision-making capablities of a monarchy, the rights of a republic.
-
I vote for Klingon style political system.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Benevolent dictatorship.
I am going to have to agree here. Someone who wants to make sure everybody is happy, and does not have an hidden agenda.
-
Im for dumping him into a crowd of people unguarded every month... :D
-
A perfect government requires perfect circumstances. It requires that people lose their belief in possibility, in the world that does not exist but might. In short, it requires that we modify the human brain.
Otherwise, all governments are prone to the same corrosive forces.
-
Where to find such a person. Even a person who generally ascribes to the notions of helping others, protecting the enviroment, and attempting to maintain harmony is going to be corrupted by that sort of power of leadership.
There is no perfect form of government. All of them are flawed because humans are flawed...thats what gives us our strength as well. As a whole, we're a fairly efficient organism at doing what we do. There's lots of variety and variation in people...the best sort of government you can have is largely a democracy.
You can have better and worse democracies.
I see the American system and I see the Canadian system and I see what I like in both systems and in European examples as well (although I know less of them). I think you need to find a balance between personal freedom and public good. Its a tough one...but make that part of your mandate as a nation. This is a doozie guys!
-
So far the longest-lasting Empire was Rome, and they used a Republic, consisting of 300 senate members, 2 consuls, and 8 preators. (Unless I just forgot the numbers) and they managed to last 1000 years. Amazing.
-
uh huh, however, the Emperor ruled, not the Senate. Thats why it was an empire.
and we must consider not only how long it will last and how stable it will be, but if it will actually be a decent system to live in. Thats the prime concern, cause if its not good (and by good, I also mean free) then whats the point of it lasting a long time?
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Setekh: what good is peace and prosperity when you have no freedom? It may not hold true for everyone, but I would rather have freedom, if I had to choose.
Of course, the best system is one where people are both free and peaceful.
Careful how you define freedom. Using the broadest definition of freedom - the kind of freedom which would be excluded by a benevolent dictatorship - the freedoms of some would destroy the freedoms of others. For instance, the freedom to murder. In fact, genuine freedom has to come within certain parameters, otherwise it starts being an illusion of freedom because you just end up harming and destroying each other.
And Ice has really hit on it. Any government is going to be flawed so long as a regular, flawed human is at the head. The very best of what humanity has to offer has demonstrated that for thousands of years, we never get very far on our own strengths.
I guess that's why I didn't say the dictator would be have to be just a human. ;)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
uh huh, however, the Emperor ruled, not the Senate. Thats why it was an empire.
and we must consider not only how long it will last and how stable it will be, but if it will actually be a decent system to live in. Thats the prime concern, cause if its not good (and by good, I also mean free) then whats the point of it lasting a long time?
Uh, dude, did you see the number "1" in there? No, it was never 1 person ruling, it was always 2 or more. 2 Consuls to run the military, 8 preators to run a judicial system, and 300 senate members that act as a legislative branch.
-
Yes, it was one person ruling. The Roman Empire was ruled by emperors for a very long time. Although they were often involved in conflicts with the Senate, they drew their legitimacy from Roman religious doctrine and, for all intents and purposes, exercised absolute power.
-
Later on in the Roman Empire, emporers were introduced, but not in her first 500 years. After Dictatorship became common, they gave up the Consul idea and just placed an Emporer in the spot. I was speaking, in a sense, of the Republic system they had created.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Later on in the Roman Empire, emporers were introduced, but not in her first 500 years. After Dictatorship became common, they gave up the Consul idea and just placed an Emporer in the spot. I was speaking, in a sense, of the Republic system they had created.
The Roman Republic though was still relatively small, and very few actually had the quality of life or rights that someone would consider to be more acceptable in this day and age.
It's a similar situation with the Greek democracy in Athens.
Then there's Sparta which also lasted 500 years as a military dictatorship.
-
Then there's the 3000(this may need revising) year reign of the Pharoh's in Egypt. They lasted that long because: 1. The had the best weapons at the time and 2. the entire populace believed the Pharoh to decended from God(specifically Ra, if you boil Egyptian mythology down to a monotheistic drama where the rest of the pantheon are bit players, Ra is the Guy. He ran everything.) The second part is the important bit, by being decended from God, the Pharoh commanded from a level of power that no other man in history save Alexander has ever enjoyed.
-
Benevolancy only works if the guy in charge is really stupid.
So stupid infact that he fails to realise he could simply ignore the people and indulge himself in every regard, never bothering to help the people. And someone that stupid wouldn't be any good at governance anyways.
The only way a dictatorship works is loyalty to the people is enforced in some manner and the 'dictator' is subject to some kind of periodic review process which cannot be usurped (like having his personal guards authorised to shoot him if he goes nuts and starts ****ing with the people for his own personal gain).
-
Keynesian Socialdemocracy.
See Sweden for more details.
Basically the state protects your rights and helps to avoid being raped by corporations thanks to a strong welfare state.
There is a certain risk of deficit spending (like the other governments don't have it) but with good administrations everything runs smoothly.
-
hey guys, great to see hlp back, yay.
china was known as the warring states period about 1500BC where there were seven different 'states', nations, whatever having it out. eventually the state of qin won and started what's now known as china. the middle kingdom (the literal translation of chinese for china) lasted under various emperors and dynasties until the nineteen hundreds when the idiot british wrecked it all by making the whole nation into opium addicts.
through that time the emperors relied both on themselves and an extended bureaucracy, neither were necessarily always good and there was all this class division and stuff, but the culture was so strong that china retained its identity even through the mongolian and manchurian invasions. so.
all that's just cos i happened to get obsessed about chinese history recently.
anyway i reckon anon's idea's the best so far (though i really hate to admit it...)
-
Originally posted by Rictor
anarchism, which is the ultimate form of self-determination.
Anarchism is idiotic. It lasts less than a few seconds before it breaks down into some other form of government.
-
I'd like to see aome hybrid of anarchy/socialism. Kind of like, I dunno, say the sort of socialism found here in the UK but with more personal freedoms, the ability to do what you want to/with yourself (drugs, sex) as long as it does not infringe upon anyone elses life you should be able to damage oneself anyway you like.
I'd like to see a government that can keep the rich and powerful in check without punishing them for what they have but also to help the poor, the lower classes, the immigrants, the homeless to be better educated, healthier, more compassionate people. Freedom of speech would be paramount as would freedom to choose any religion (or no religion if that is the preference) without persecution, positive discrimination or poltical correctness. I'd like to see a kind of government that is willing to step away from brute force as a first response and be more open to diplomacy.
I'd like to see a government that I felt actually represented a step forward for the whole of humanity, that was willing to evolve it's ideas on society and not be afraid to try and push humanity into something more perfect than the mess it is. I'd like to see a government that would try to push the human desire for exploration as far out into space as we could.
I think maybe I'm an idealist but surely this isn't too much to ask?
-
the thing is, i don't understand how you can have freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe on other people. the whole point of society is interaction between people, if you don't have that you might as well go be a hermit. and if you have interaction between people then there will always be disagreement about what constitutes infringement of rights and in fact, what rights each person deserves.
anyway, people aren't equal in that not everyone needs the same thing.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Anarchism is idiotic. It lasts less than a few seconds before it breaks down into some other form of government.
I totally agree with this. Anarchy will never work (well, except after a nuclear war, but that's different :D ), and there is always somebody waiting to take over and create a new governing system. Anarchy shouldn't even be counted to be a "form of government" because no government exists.
But the perfect system of government? Benevolent dictatorship, ie. an "enlightened monarchy" would be my choice.
-
So you are saying that in your own room by yourself that you would infringe on other peoples life? I know a lot of people who use drugs, none of them have ever let it effect anyones lives but their own. But I do not wish to argue this, I have an awesome hangover.
I dunno, I guess though my core phillosophy can be reduced to a single sentence.
"Be excellent to each other"
Ahh Bill and Ted. I tell you, whoever wrote that damn film was a visionary.
:lol:
::EDIT::
I agree with the anarchy not working thing. I think, I could deal with it and a lot of other people could too, but, I think a lot of people want to be led, even if they don't realise it. I think a lot of people just want to belong to something.
-
Originally posted by IceFire
Where to find such a person. Even a person who generally ascribes to the notions of helping others, protecting the enviroment, and attempting to maintain harmony is going to be corrupted by that sort of power of leadership.
60 years ago. I might have had an answer for you.
Hell, not 20 years ago, I'd have an answer as well.
But today....sorry, no can do.
I actually had an interesting idea on an entirely new governmental system from the ground-up, but its too lengthy and probably full of holes, not to mention bulky and unweildy.
-
Hive Mind. everyone makes a decision together and works together, and everyone can see everyone else's point of view.
-
yeah, 01010, but who's gonna want to sit in a room all by themself? i don't call that doing whatever i want.
all actions will affect others, directly or indirectly. like the butterfly effect, only with people.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
yeah, 01010, but who's gonna want to sit in a room all by themself? i don't call that doing whatever i want.
all actions will affect others, directly or indirectly. like the butterfly effect, only with people.
Like I said, I'm an idealist, it means I don't have to see the holes in my theories. :)
I know it probably wouldn't work, but it's nice to dream.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
the thing is, i don't understand how you can have freedom to do whatever you want so long as you don't infringe on other people.
Let me put it this way. What business is it of the governments if I want to have sex with a consenting adult? What business is it of theirs if I want to use cocaine to get high instead of getting drunk?
What business is it of theirs if I have a terminal cancer and would rather die now at a time and place of my choosing instead of 3 weeks from now in intense pain?
The irony is that I feel you do need a government in place to protect and enforce your rights. That's why I don't support anarchism. I tend more towards the socialist end of the spectrum. You have a strong government working towards the good of the people.
-
You put it far better than I could in my current state Kara. Good man.
-
Panarchy...
-
Benevolent Dictatorship, I guess.
-
Marxism-nah, I dont like red ("you can keep your marxist ways, its only just a phase")
Democracy-People are stupid, you don't want us to decide anything
Oligarchy-People fight to be an Autocrat
Aoutarchy-see above, add someone who wants power
Anarchims-gonna take some convincing
Xenocracy-Carl rules us
Thearchy- God doesnt exist
Stratocracy-no one ever trusts the military
Punditocracy(my fav)-We are ruled by the satirists, oh I like this one.
Pornocracy-No!
Pollarchy-See democracy
Pantarchy-The idealist's democracy, never gonna happen
Kakistocracy-all governments have been like this
Cryptarchy-what we actually have (yes so what, I played Deus Ex)
Benevolent Dictatorship-I'd take the piss
We
are
Doomed
-
How distressing that so many people chose benevolent dictatorship as the ideal form of government.Does freedom mean nothing to you? Stability without freedoom is meaningless.
OK, anarchism. First, try not to conjure up the image of angry hordes rampaging through the streets, thats comeplete crap. Secondly, anarchism the way I see it does not mean no government, it means the freedom to choose your government and/or make you own. Human beings, right now anyway, need and want government, not in the sense of a ruler, but in the sense of a voluntary organization of individuals.
There is no such thing as government except as a collection of individuals. So, anarchism is just the ability to exclude yourself from the authority of tha tgroup of individuals, and form your own group. Once you take it as granted that every person is free to do as they like, so long as they don't infringe upon someone else's freedom (and as I said, that could techinica;;y be interpreted as even being in the vicinity of someone else, but I believe people have enough sense to apply a rational standard for what constitutes an infringement of freedoms.), I believe anarchism is what follows naturally.
All this does is make the concept of a government much more fluid. If I want to break off from Canada because I don't like the way they tax me, fine, I break off, but I also loose any benefits such as roads, electricity and so forth.
And yes, it can be stable. Most people aren't really up to the level where it would be stable right now, I believe that as people grow more sophisticated, anarchism is exactly what will inevitably emerge. It doesn't even mean that anything will change, since government has obvious benefits, it just means that that government will be formed and maintained only because of the voluntary association of individuals that form that government. Small groups are functioning today on the basis of anarchism, and are quite stable. And it has been proven in the past that it can work on a national level. All that is required is the will among people to excersise their freedoms, and let others excerise theirs.
101010: what you're talking about is pretty much what anarchism is today. Libertarian-socialism is another way of describing it. There is a strong streak of solidarity and collectivism, so it sort of transcends the left-right spectrum, favouring both worker control and all the good stuff from the left (helping people) while at the same time favouring small government, like the right.
-
I should point out that at I'm not an anarchist, but rather a social democrat. However,, thats not set in stone, and I also believe that, as I said, its what is almost ineviotable coming if things continue on the way they are.
-
I believe that as people grow more sophisticated, anarchism is exactly what will inevitably emerge.
That humanity will become more sophisticated is a weighty assumption to make. I tend to arrive at the conclusion that humanity will always be bound to bring the same set of circumstances upon itself.
-
Communism.
Well, its the most successfull spinnoff of my persona favorite; Marksism (or however you spell it) ///
-
Read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 'tis all written there :)
While it may not be the perfect system of government, it'd certainly work a lot better, because the "dictator" is not aware of his situation or power. And you'd keep the simple people happy as well, with the dummy "president" :nod:
Power corrupts, but it is far less likely to corrupt someone who isn't aware of his influence. The people striving for a powerful position are by nature the wrong sort of people for the job. The ideal person to be in power absolutely doesn't want to have the job.
-
Indeed.
There are few people I trust less that "natural-born leaders."
-
Originally posted by Rictor
How distressing that so many people chose benevolent dictatorship as the ideal form of government.Does freedom mean nothing to you? Stability without freedoom is meaningless.
Probably the same reason people flock to religion. It's easy and comfortable and that's a reasonable desire (Not as reasonable a desire as the desire for freedom and knowledge, but that's imo).
I don't think it's a very realistic government though.
While it's possible to be more or less universally benevolent in some respects (food/shelter for everyone, no killings, so on) there are finer points to a government in which it's impossible to be even close to universally benevolent.
Some think abortion is a crime, some think it's a crime to force a woman into motherhood. Deciding on an issue like that would quickly make the dictator not to benevolent to many people.
My ideal society would be governed similar to the Edenist society in Peter F. Hamilton's Night's Dawn series. It's a fully democratic government where every citizen gets a single vote in decisions (this is enabled via a psychic link between all citizens in Edenist culture) at every level (city, habitat whole society, whatever).
There usually aren't very many decisions to make though, the society is based around tolerance and open-mindedness (it is a psychic culture after all, sharing thoughts and feelings is encouraged though not required).
-
Originally posted by Rictor
And yes, it can be stable. Most people aren't really up to the level where it would be stable right now, I believe that as people grow more sophisticated, anarchism is exactly what will inevitably emerge.
By the time people are sensible enough for Anarchism to not simply devolve into anarchy there will be much better systems in place (such as meritocracy).
Quite frankly I don't believe it will ever work and it certainly won't work now. This is supposed to be a debate of which government would work best now not which one would work best in cloud cookoo land where the world contains nothing but sensible people.
-
Traditional FTW!
-
Well by that standard kara, no one would ever have given democracy a try. The alegations make aganst fully democratic rule (more involvement in political and social decisions, as well as allowing freer association) are the same ones made against democracy by the proponents of oligarchy, back in the day. Simply, that it would be too chaotic, and that the masses couldn't handle it ina responsible manner. For the record, I also support what you described, more democratic society, because thats a realistic goal to shoot for. Thats why I said I'm social democratic.
I'll try to explain it with an analogy. Capitalism means that anyone can trade with anyone else, be it an individual or a group of individuals, on whatever terms the two parties agree to. If a certain group of people want to set up a communist-style business, they are allowed to do that, since capitalism is simply the absence of restrictions on trade. Or if they want to pay their workers 5 cents an hour, and they can actually get someone to agree to work for that kind of money, thats OK too. Capitalism is the system within which all other systems are possible, because its simply a way of saying "do your own thing".
Thats almost exactly the way I regard anarchism. You have the freedom to do your own thing. If 300 million people want to form a nation, and call it the United States, and have all the laws and rules currently in the US, so be it. But if someone doesn't want to be a part of that nation, and joins with like-minded people to form the United Republic of Aaradvark, which will be a socialist/monarchist hybrid, thats fine too. All it is is the absence of any restrictions on freedom of association.
Its the system that contains all other systems, but it does not restrict people from choosing any system or force any system upon anyone who does not want to participate.
-
no human is perfect, therefore there will never be such thing as a perfect human system of government
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Well by that standard kara, no one would ever have given democracy a try.
Sorry but that's not true. Democracy doesn't start out with the same stupid assumption that all people can be trusted to abide by a basic tenet (i.e your declaration that Anarchism requires that everyone understands that every person is free to do as they like, so long as they don't infringe upon someone else's freedom).
There are so many flaws in this system that its not funny. I can't believe that any rational person would claim that its a working system of government.
The system just doesn't work. What happens if the Republic of Aaradvark decided that it has laws that the neighbouring republics don't agree with?
Suppose an Aardvarkian citizen shoots a kid who was getting his football back from their garden? The Republic says that it's trespassing to do that and laws were enacted to say that you can kill trespassers. What can the republic who the kid was a citizen of do without violating the rights of Aardvark?
What do you do when a Aardvarkian citizen comits a crime and then runs next door to the Great Mafialand (a republic which has no extradition treaty with Aardvark because it was set up by criminals).
The whole thing is just a mess. You'd end up with all the states having to exert force over their neighbours all the time in order to get what they wanted.
-
Socialism.
With naked chicks.
-
so really, what everyone wants is 'i do what i want but you can't do what you want to me', and a government that somehow enforces that.
sorry, don't think that's gonna happen.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
so really, what everyone wants is 'i do what i want but you can't do what you want to me', and a government that somehow enforces that.
sorry, don't think that's gonna happen.
I think it's more 'Let's all do what we want to do, so long as it doesn't hurt anybody else'.
I'm technically in favour of an anarchy of sorts, in that I would prefer 'countries' to be formed out of people who willingly join together as a nation rather than arbitrary lines drawn out over the landscape... societies would be formed by individuals coming together with a clear understanding of what they could expect to contribute and receive and knowledge of that society's basic tenets.
With this, there would be room for ideologies of all sorts - all the democrats could form their democratic society, the communists their communist society, the fascists a fascist society, the dictators and dictatees a dictatorship, the theocrats a theocracy... not just one, but a society for every possible permutation of thought, every possible interpretation of ideology tempered by the willingness of the participants to compromise.
All of this would, naturally, be underpinned by the realisation that the perfect society is defined not according to some definition writ unto the universe, but by the participants of that society - a society is measured not against some metre rule of 'goodness' built into existence, but against an individual's own preference and desire, and since such preference is, well, individual, the perfect society changes for each and every person. And also a general feeling that attacking one another physically is pointless and disrupts an otherwise peaceful balance. War, perhaps, would be thought with ideas, not bullets.
Unrealistic? Damn straight. But we are talking about creating a single 'perfect society' for the six-plus billion completely different people inhabiting this miserable planet, aren't we?
Now who's unrealistic?
-
what if i happen to disagree with you what's going to hurt you or anybody else?
and could somebody definitively define freedom? is freedom to be able to do whatever we want? but then we're just slaves to our desires, aren't we?
-
does it matter how its run as long as the people under it are happy?
-
Thus, naked chicks.
-
So why the socialism KT? Don't naked chicks sufice?
-
Yes, they would be the focal point. Socialism is just icing on the cake.
-
a socialist democracy where everyone 18 up gets a vote automaticaly if a citizen of the state, no registering as this stops people from voting, the states would be responceible for health care and other social concerns as this is the point of a government to protect it people, free health care for all and a social payment scheme for unemployed people and social housing of good quality, otherwise why pay taxes, also army and police etc, the government would consist of a president of limited power so no chance of a dictator etc, and a parliment or senate which the people elect by majority vote, no proportional representation or electoral colledge, the people can call for a general election if 10% of the populace sign a pettition or something, also if war ect is declared or the constitution needs changing a vote must be taken and decided by the people, the government stays in power for 4 years or another short term. also no hereditary peers like the house of lords in england or the senate in ireland which is not voted for by the people as this is undemocratic, opinions please.
-
And voting would be ****ing mandatory.
-
Originally posted by icespeed
what if i happen to disagree with you what's going to hurt you or anybody else?
Obviously we'd adopt a common standard. Like science.
and could somebody definitively define freedom? is freedom to be able to do whatever we want? but then we're just slaves to our desires, aren't we?
Well, we're always enslaved to who we are and what we know.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Obviously we'd adopt a common standard. Like science.
And boobs. Don't forget boobs.
-
Originally posted by Blaise Russel
Well, we're always enslaved to who we are and what we know.
Not me.
Well, not in the way you mean.
-
/me is enslaving to his own domineering will
I'm such a naughty boy sometimes.
-
Proportional democracy; seems to work quite well in (devolved) Scotland, albeit the parliament is still a bit toothless.
It's similar to the UK's general constituency based elections (i.e. top candidate in an area is their MP, which means that a party can have lots of votes but few MPs if they don't win enough constituencies - see Lib Dems), but with the addition of x seats which are given on the basis of overall voting percentage for a party.
There's the obvious minor problem that said MPs don't actually represent a specific ward, but I think that is minor because IMO most people vote upon national party lines as upon local issues.
NB: US democracy would be much more democratic if the electoral college voted proportionally to the percentage of votes received for either candidate (I think Colorado is due to do this- ?), which would simply be fairer.
There also should be a very low cap on the amount of donations available to a political party to campaign, and donations should instead go to a central pool which is equally distributed to either side upon election time (including 3rd parties, possibly on a basis of number of states where they stand+previous vote).... if no-one is willing to donate, impose a $1 a year 'democracy tax' or something.
-
Not to be a conformist whore, but proportional representation lead to the rise of the Nazi's.
I am of the opinion that a nice, stable facist omnicidalocracy is the best.
Basically: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
-
Originally posted by an0n
Not to be a conformist whore, but proportional representation lead to the rise of the Nazi's.
I am of the opinion that a nice, stable facist omnicidalocracy is the best.
Basically: "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out."
Sooo.... you'd like the Nazis, then?
-
The only thing worse than anarchy is government. :p
Can't remember whose quote that is, though...
-
Ugh. There's a fundamental problem with this: people are bastards. There's no system that can work perfectly, because some idiot will always decide that he could run things better, and will stir things up and break it.
My ideal system would be something along the lines of the Culture - the civilisation in Iain M. Banks's books. Basically, the people do what they want, while the Minds run everything.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
Read the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. 'tis all written there :)
While it may not be the perfect system of government, it'd certainly work a lot better, because the "dictator" is not aware of his situation or power. And you'd keep the simple people happy as well, with the dummy "president" :nod:
Power corrupts, but it is far less likely to corrupt someone who isn't aware of his influence. The people striving for a powerful position are by nature the wrong sort of people for the job. The ideal person to be in power absolutely doesn't want to have the job.
I dunno, the old bloke who lives in a shack and talks to his cat sounds a lot like Dubya.